The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

I've been reading the obituaries on RIM for the last day or so, following another earning's miss for the device maker. The explanations for RIM's demise seem to be a little old school, though. RIM didn't come up with a new breakthrough product.... well, plenty of companies keep plugging away with incremental innovation. Lack of execution capability is another explanation, so too is the "app gap". Time for an update!

I'll chance my arm with a different explanation. RIM failed to develop a coherent strategic options portfolio. Every move it made seemed to be the only move it could make in the circumstances, considering the capabilities of its senior executives, and the position it was in. Nokia had a similar problem before teaming up with Microsoft - and is by no means clear of the woods yet. The distinguishing feature for competitor Apple is that Apple is constantly creating more strategic options for itself. Strategic options' planning is the new innovation.

At this point, Research in Motion's battle to stay in contention echoes that of Blockbuster fighting to contend with Netflix (NFLX) in the eleventh hour, back in 2008. Although Blockbuster finally dug into the online landscape Netflix was controlling unopposed, it was all for naught, as customers were not about to switch back to a company that had already failed them once before.

Some of RIM's moves have been fascinating nonetheless. Buying QNX, the operating system at the heart of the future car is one of them. QNX was then integrated into BBX, the new generation platform from RIM with a specific remit for embedded devices.

RIM has talked both apps and HTML5 and I think through this, and its vision for embedded, put its options too far into the future. Plenty of people think that apps are a wrong-headed way of delivering services but that doesn't change the fact that they are a dominant channel and will be for years to come. You can be a teetotaller and yet still sell beer, enthusiastically.

RIM clearly has an advantage in embedded devices in markets like autos. In theory this would be a nice place to be but the world buys less than 100 million cars a year compared to over 1 billion mobile devices. You can see why RIM went there but you can also see a long timescale to fruition, and a strategy that stands little chance of creating real strategic options for some time.

So what does it mean to have a strong strategic options portfolio? Put simply companies like Apple don't just introduce a new blockbuster product, periodically. They are in the strategic options business.

They have introduced a software-style upgrade cycle into hardware and are playing it like no device strategy I've seen to date - that's especially the case with the iPad and the iPhone. But it would be no surprise if there was a sudden announcement on a new TV initiative or a revamped iAds service or if Siri started appearing in all kinds of devices. They could lower their prices at will or they could choose a new premium price point for an upgrade. The point is these are multiple, credible options that the board can play around with, and make a move on depending on the circumstances.

Generating multiple options is a new strategic focal point for companies that understand what it takes to operate within this economy - more markets, more needs, more options. Right now though not many companies get it. Does yours?